Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 1
Good morning. Christi Weiss on behalf of the California Association for Nurse Practitioners in Support. Appreciate the amendments to modernize the nurse practitioner statute, and continue the Board.
Speaker 24
Good morning. Monica Miller on behalf of the California Association of Nurse Anesthesiology in support. Look forward to continuing to work with the author and her staff. We want to thank them for the work so far. Additionally, on behalf of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, again, thank the author, her staff, and then, of course, the board for all of their work.
Speaker 2
Thank you so very much. Any other me too's in support? Seeing none, lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, anyone add on in opposition? Name, organization, please.
Speaker 22
George Torres with the California Medical Association. Just concerned with the one provision as it relates to out of state nurse practitioners transitioning to practice in California. Looking forward to working with the author and the committee. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you so very much. Any others? Seeing no other public comment, we'll bring it to the committee for questions or comments. This is item number five, SB thirteen oh two. Number five, SB thirteen oh two.
Seeing no questions or comments from committee, we'll turn back to the author. Would you like to close?
Speaker 2
Thank you so very much. We will move on to item number six, SB thirteen oh three. Senator, you may begin.
Speaker 1
Thank you. SB thirteen oh three is the sunset extension vehicle for the California Board of Naturopathic Medicine. I'd like to accept the amendments outlined in the analysis. This bill extends the Board's operations by four years to 01/01/2031. Additionally, SB thirteen oh three staggers Governor appointed Board Member terms to prevent Board Member terms from expiring on the same date, implements a fictitious name permit program, including eligibility requirements criteria, causes for disciplinary action and application and renewal fees specifies that misuse of a fictitious name is unprofessional conduct authorizes the Board to accept voluntary license cancellation provided the request is not in lieu of administrative enforcement action, reduces the inactive license fee by 50%, and repeals outdated obsolete sections and makes other technical amendments.
With me is Rebecca Mitchell, Executive Officer of the California Board of Natural Medicine, here to testify and respond to any technical questions.
Speaker 1
Rebecca Mitchell, Executive Officer of Naturopathic Medicine Board, sorry. And we appreciate the intent language, and we support this bill. Thank you so much. I'm here for any questions.
Speaker 2
Thank you so very much. Any other witnesses in public that would like to add on name, organization, and position? Thank you so much.
Speaker 16
Good morning. I'm Doctor. Meredith Bull on behalf of the California Naturopathic Doctors Association in support of SBE thirteen oh three. I would like to thank their board for their continued efforts in upholding the safe practice of naturopathic medicine in California, and then for all of your diligence in the sunset review process. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses stepping forward in support, lead witnesses in opposition, please step up to the microphone, two minutes each.
Speaker 3
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members. Roxanne Gould representing the California Naturopathic Association. When the Board of Naturopathic Medicine was established, it specifically stated that they did not have the authority to regulate traditional naturopathy. Yet, even at the informational hearing, they stated they spent 70% of their budget regulating those entities.
So I am asking today that this committee clarify amendments to state that the jurisdiction of the Naturopathic Medicine Board does not extend to the regulation of alternative and complementary healthcare practice, including naturopathy, maintaining distinctive preserves, legislative intent, regulatory clarity, and appropriate agency oversight. I hate reading testimony. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Your testimony is noted by the committee. So thank you very much. Any other members of the public wish to express opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it to the committee for questions or comments. Seeing no questions or comments for item number six Senator, would you like to
Speaker 2
Thank you. And you have accepted those amendments. So we will move on to item number seven, SB thirteen-four. Senator, you may begin.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I'm here to present SB thirteen oh four, the Respiratory Care Poor Board Sunset Extension Bill. SB thirteen oh four addresses issues discussed during the Board Sunset Review hearing in their Sunset Review report and the committee's Sunset Review background paper. There are a lot of provisions in this bill related to providing respiratory care services in specified settings that have raised concerns, and we will continue these conversations. In the meantime, the safety of medically fragile individuals is my utmost concern.
This bill increases the license renewal fee and license renewal ceiling fee and permanently eliminates the initial license fee. This bill revises the national examination title to reflect the consolidation of the current examinations required for licensure. This bill updates the exempt practices settings. Licensed vocational nurses may perform limited respiratory care tasks and services and clarifies required patient specified training and competency standard. This bill extends the operations of the Board until 01/01/2031.
Here today to answer any technical questions is Kathryn Pitt, the Assistant Executive Director of the Board.
Speaker 2
Kathryn Thank you very much. Anyone in or lead witnesses? No lead witnesses? Any add ons for support? Seeing one stepping two stepping forward.
Name, organization, and position.
Speaker 18
Hello. My name is Peter Kellison, representing the California Association for Health Services at Home and the Pediatric Day Health Care Coalition, which employ licensed vocational nurses to provide respiratory care therapy. We appreciate everything that went into this legislation. We're happy to continue working with the Board and others on clarifying amendments.
Speaker 5
Jennifer Tannehill with Aaron Reed and Associates, on behalf of the California Society for Respiratory Care, representing respiratory therapists from around the state. We want to thank the committee for their work, and we support the language that's in the bill. Thanks.
Speaker 10
Good morning. I'm Yvonne Chung with the California Association of Health Facilities. We are the state association for skilled nursing facilities. We represent about 900 skilled nursing facilities. CAF is concerned about the exclusion of SNFs from the list of exempted facilities where LVNs are authorized to provide basic respiratory care tasks as part of their scope of practice.
We request that SB thirteen oh four be amended to include SNFs and other licensed health facilities as settings where trained LVNs can provide basic respiratory care. The LVN scope of practice is defined in state law, and oversight for LVN licensing is under the board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians. As part of their education, LVNs are trained and licensed to perform a range of practical nursing tasks, including basic respiratory care tasks. LVNs work as part of a health care team under the direct supervision of registered nurses and physicians. They've historically provided these basic regulatory services in SNFs and other health care settings.
Existing statute and regulations that authorize the RCB to oversee and enforce LVN scope of practice with regard to the performance of respiratory care tasks has resulted in confusion, major care disruptions, and unanticipated cost increases in health care, social service, and educational settings. SB thirteen oh four does not resolve these issues. Establishing a more restrictive scope of practice for LVNs working in health facilities than for LVNs working in a nonhealth care facility, it's contrary to the state's goals for patient safety and public protection. For these reasons, CAFA is opposed to SB thirteen oh four, unless it is amended to include SNFs and other health facilities as settings where LVNs can perform these basic respiratory tasks, as they have done so safely for decades. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you, and thank you for your testimony. Other lead witness in opposition? And then, we'll do add ons here in a minute. Two minutes.
Speaker 7
Thank you. Good morning. Vanessa Gonzalez with the California Hospital Association, also representing over 400 hospitals throughout the state, as well as 100 skilled nursing facilities. CHA shares the concerns raised by CAF specific to key health care settings, like hospitals and skilled nursing facilities being excluded from the list of settings where LVNs can perform basic respiratory tasks. In many parts of California, where RN and respiratory therapist shortages are most acute, facilities may simply be unable to hire additional staff, which is going to relate, result in delayed admissions.
Speaker 11
And of course, when post acute access is limited, it creates a ripple effect throughout the entire system. Patients who are ready to leave the hospital end up waiting for a skilled nursing facility bed much longer than they have to. This ties up the hospital's inpatient capacity, and then backs up the entire emergency department, and leads to increased wait times. So for these reasons, is opposed to SB thirteen oh four unless it's amended to include SNFs and other health care facility settings, where LVNs can perform basic respiratory tests. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you for your testimony. Additional members of the public like to step forward in opposition. Name, organization, position.
Speaker 3
Mr. Chairman, members, Roxanne Gould, in the interest of not being duplicative, I'd like to align our position with those of the previous folks testifying. And most importantly, I don't have to read any testimony.
Speaker 12
Amber King with Leading Age California also here oppose unless amended for the reasons stated by CAF and C. A. J. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you so much. Seeing no other members of public for opposition, we will bring it to the committee for questions, comments. Senator Nilo, you're recognized.
Speaker 13
Thank you, mister chair. You are chair acting. Senator Wahab, can you answer the issue? It seems to me if LVNs are trained and skilled to provide a particular service to restrict that, to allow it in some settings and restrict it in others, if I understand the issue correctly, kind of doesn't make sense to me. Can you answer the give us the logic behind that?
Speaker 1
Yeah. So this bill is a work in progress. We are working with stakeholders as we are with all of our sunset review bills. There has been a lot of conversations. There's different nurses in different settings with different trainings.
And we're trying to my goal, and I've said this very clearly, is to make sure that people have more ability to do more earlier, so they're not referred to another specialist or any other type of setting. But that is requiring a lot of conversation because historically it has not been the case. I'm happy to provide our technical witness who sorry Katherine Pitt to answer any other additional questions.
Speaker 12
Hi. Katherine Pitt with the Respiratory Care Board. To answer your question, lot of it has to do although it has to do with the patient acuity level in the different settings. And so that's what really what the RCB is looking at. A patient in a hospital or a SNF, they're at a higher acuity level, so they require more technical respiratory services versus patients at home or in the smaller home and community based settings.
They're more stable, and so they get routine care, and they get the routine basic respiratory services that LVNs can provide in any setting. There is no restriction right now for basic respiratory services for LVNs in any setting in the state.
Speaker 12
It does in the small and home and community based settings. We are requiring some additional training, and that's patient specific. So it's for that. The RCB feels that the training that the LVNs receive in schools is not adequate to that of a respiratory care practitioner, and so they are not equipped to handle the care that's needed in the higher acuity settings.
Speaker 6
Thank you. So I would say that it is true that patient acuity is higher in SNFs and hospitals, but they do require a range of respiratory care tests from the very routine up to the more complex. I don't think that we are asking that LVNs be able to do things that they have not already been doing. And when we talk about basic tasks, we're talking about things like light sectioning to remove secretions, adjustment of BPAP or CPAP mask, very basic sort of things. So I think that because the sunset review bill does allow the additional training of LVNs outside of a health care setting, it seems to us that if there are things that LVNs can be trained to do in the home, it makes sense that they could be trained to do them in an actual health care setting as well.
Speaker 13
Thank you. The concern I have is that any restriction on practice for trained health care providers is an access issue.
Speaker 13
And scope of practice debates affect access. Yeah. And so I trust you'll continue to work on that. I understand the point made by the expert in favor, but in the interest of access
Speaker 13
Yeah. Very clever Senator Wahhab. We could have quite a debate about that right But we will stay on whole hearing to spin completely out of control. But in the interest of time, I won't go there. We can talk about that otherwise.
But I trust you'll continue to work
Speaker 2
Before we take any other questions, let's establish a quorum. Secretary, please call
Speaker 14
Wahab? Wahab here. Troy? Yeah. Troy here.
Archeleta? Here. Archeleta here. Adegine? Caballero?
Grayson?
Speaker 15
Yeah. I want to have a follow-up question on Senator Nilo's question on LVNs. It says LVNs may perform certain respiratory care services. Can you elaborate what certain categories that you are referring to?
Speaker 11
So LVNs right now, based on regulation, can provide basic respiratory care throughout all of California in any setting. There is regulation that's going through the rule making process right now that would expand on the services that they can provide to those home and community based settings. And those are more advanced respiratory care services beyond the basics. So they require respiratory assessment, which is why we are requiring the additional training for the LVNs in those settings.
Speaker 15
You are saying more advanced. Can you specify what the certain responsibilities that they are trying to expand?
Speaker 12
I don't have the list in front of me, but it's, you know, it oxygen, they deal with the ventilator, things like that. I don't I don't have the list in front of me, but we can definitely provide it.
Speaker 15
Will it danger any patients for that advanced responsibilities LVN will provide?
Speaker 12
Right. So these services that we're proposing that they provide that they need the extra training for have a lot higher risks involved, which is why we wanted the training. I wish I had the list.
Speaker 15
But before extending, are you saying that you're going to provide more additional training to LVNs?
Speaker 12
It's going to be part of the regulation package, yes, for the LVNs in those settings.
Speaker 15
Senator Wahap, is that your bill intended that LVNs will get the additional training for that advanced services that they will be providing?
Speaker 1
That is slightly the case, but I also wanna say this is work in progress and there's a lot of negotiation happening. We are also going to have to have a conversation with BPAD in the assembly, but again, this is largely technical changes and a little bit more of an expansion of people being able to do the work at hand. So yes.
Speaker 15
Yes. If you would include that additional training for them to take that advanced responsibilities that I will be supporting. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Any other members of the committee with questions or comments? Seeing none, we will go to the author for close.
Speaker 14
Motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab, aye. Choi?
Speaker 14
Archuleta, aye. Adeguin? Caballero? Grayson? Aye.
Grayson, aye. Mengevar? Nilo?
Speaker 2
We have six votes. We will place that on call for absent members. Now we can move on to item number eight, SB thirteen sixty three. Senator, you may begin.
Speaker 1
Thank you. SB thirteen sixty three is the sunset extension vehicle for the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology. I'd like to accept the amendments outlined in the analysis. This bill extends the board's operations by four years to 01/01/2031. This bill also updates the Board's apprenticeship requirements by clarifying that an apprentice is a person who is employed by the owner of a licensed establishment, requiring an applicant for a license as an apprentice to submit a copy of the apprentice agreement that was entered into between the apprentice and their program sponsor and establishing that failure to comply with all laws and regulations applicable to apprenticeships is cause for discipline or no longer being able to hire apprentices.
SB thirteen sixty three authorizes the Board to issue licenses to partnerships and limited liability corporations and requires corporations and LLCs to remain in good standing with the Secretary of State as a condition of licensure. Finally, SB thirteen sixty three exempts federally recognized tribes licensed as establishments from maintaining good standing with the Secretary of State when they are chartered under tribal or federal law. With me is Kristi Underwood, Executive Officer of the Board Barbering and Cosmetology, is here to testify in support and respond to any technical questions.
Speaker 11
Christy Underwood with the Board of Art, Brain and Cosmetology here for any technical questions.
Speaker 2
Very good. Seeing any other members of the public want to add on in support? Seeing no one, lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing no one, bringing to the committee questions. We have a motion from Senator Archuleta.
Always has Senator, a you can close.
Speaker 14
Motion is due passed as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab, aye. Choi?
Aye. Choi, aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta, aye.
Caballero? Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye. Mengevar?
Nilo?
Speaker 2
We have six votes. We will place that on call for absent members. Committee members, we are moving to item number nine, SB thirteen sixty eight. Senator, you may begin.
Speaker 1
Thank you. SB thirteen sixty eight, the speech language pathology and audiology audiology and hearing aid dispensers board sunset extension bill. SB thirteen sixty eight addresses the issues discussed during the Board's sunset review hearing in their sunset review report and the committee's sunset review background paper. This bill will provide the Board with statutory authority to establish a retired license category. This bill makes statutory clarifications to enhance the Board oversight of continuing education providers and continuing professional development providers.
This bill makes technical changes that improve the Board operations and enforcement of the Act. This bill extends the operations of the Board until 01/01/2031. Here today to answer any technical questions is Charice Burns, the Executive Board of the Director of the Board.
Speaker 2
Fantastic. Thank you. Lead witnesses that want to testify in support? Two minutes.
Speaker 12
Charisse Burns, Executive Officer for the Board. Thank you to the Chair and the Committee Consultants for all their work. We support the bill, of course, and we appreciate all your help in technical and clarifying amendments, as well as the retired and continued professional development.
Speaker 21
Next. Morning, Chair members. Nick Brokahi from Sacramento Advocates. On behalf of the California Academy of Audiology, we wish to express our support for the continued operations of the board, and to commend the board and staff for the great work they do. Also, I want to thank this committee for raising in its previous background paper the issues around access to care, and, it's one of the reasons why the California Academy of Audiology has been pushing to see, the creation of a new license type for audiology assistants.
Speaker 17
Thank you. Any other members of the public wish to add on in support? Seeing none, lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing no movement, we do have a motion from Senator Strickland, bringing it back to the committee for questions, comments. Seeing no questions or comments, Senator, would you like to close?
Speaker 14
The motion is due passed to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab I. Choi?
Aye. Choi I. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta?
Adegine? Caballero? Grayson? Aye. Grayson, aye.
Menjivar? Nilo?
Speaker 1
Very beginning, if you guys don't mind, first to ensure that we have a motion on that first bill. Okay. Alright. Senator Urchuleta, move that bill. Do you know which one I'm talking about?
The o two. The one that did not have Oh. Oh. Oh. A motion.
They pulled those. The first two didn't.
Speaker 1
Alright. That that bill's six to zero. That bill's on call. We're gonna move on to file item number five.
Speaker 14
Votion is due passed as amended to send our Appropriations Committee. Wahab? Aye. Hob, aye. Choi?
Speaker 14
Choi, aye. Archuleta, aye. Ardelline. Caballero? Grayson?
Aye. Grayson, aye. Minjevar? Nilo?
Speaker 1
Alright. We're gonna move on to senator Ashby, file item number one, s B865. Senator, when you are ready.
Speaker 22
Thank you, madam chair. Thanks for allowing me to present today to business professions economic development committee. Happy to be back in the room with you all. Madam chair, do you have your witnesses sit at the table or speak at the microphone out there? Your lead witnesses.
Okay. All right. I am proud to be here to present this bill, the Music Festival Preservation Act, which establishes a musical festival grant program with GOBiz. Music festivals have a profound economic impact in the state of California. I know you all know that.
They attract thousands of visitors to our individual communities every year, generate millions of dollars in economic activity for some of the smallest parts of our region too, that have trouble rep, with that type of fundraising. That happens when you're able to bring a large event venue into your community. They contribute significant tax revenues and bolster local economies. For example, in 2024, Aftershock and Golden Sky music festivals generated an economic impact of more than $44,000,000 for Sacramento. Despite generating significant revenue for cities, music festivals face many challenges.
Speaker 23
This includes high production costs, especially for essential services such as location, security, safety, sanitation, and staff fees. And most of these expenses have to be covered well in advance of the event, which leave these folks on a thin margin of operation. This bill address the issue by establishing a funding source for multi day independent live music festivals that strengthen our communities and local economies. It's critical that we invest in the creative economy and that we include multi day music festivals as part of that mission across the great state of California. With me today, have two incredible witnesses who work in this space every day.
Speaker 22
One is the president and CEO of Visit Sacramento. His name is Mike Testa. And the other is the Senior Director of Legal Affairs for Danny Wimmer Presents, based out of Los Angeles, Dylan Welsh. Madam Chair, when
Speaker 23
Good morning. Mike Testa, president and CEO of Visit Sacramento. You know, from a visitation standpoint, Sacramento doesn't have a Golden Gate Bridge. We don't have bucket list things that make people want to come to our city. So we create opportunities to bring people here.
Music festivals have been one of those opportunities. They've added more than a 100,000 hotel room nights to our community every year. It's a strategy that we didn't have in place before. Oftentimes, these attendees stay for three and four days in Sacramento. We went from five music festivals in Sacramento to two music festivals.
These are not easy events to produce. I always say that if being a concert promoter were easy, everybody would do it. The reality is the promoter takes a 100% of the risk. The local communities and the state government reap the rewards. We have no skin in the game, yet we get revenues coming into the city whether or not the promoter makes or loses money.
Speaker 25
For Sacramento, aftershock brings about $41,000,000 across the region from Yolo County to Placer County and everything in between. 3,000,000 of that is generated in taxes to the city and county of Sacramento. Just under $1,000,000 in taxes is directed for the state of California. It brings 10,000 jobs to our region, which is critical, especially these days. These festivals are not branded to Sacramento.
Speaker 23
They're not branded to the state of California, which means they could pick up and move anywhere. The reality is if we expect these promoters to commit to us, we have to have some level of commitment to them to to continue to to get the benefits that they bring to our community. We urge your support of this. Thank you.
Speaker 3
you, Chair Wahab, members of the committee. Dylan Welsh, behalf of Danny Weber Presents, to express our strong support for SB eight sixty five and the California Music Festival Prevention Preservation Grant. Danny Wimmer Presents is one of the nation's largest independent music festival promoters. We're headquartered in California and produce a portfolio of large scale multi day festivals that attract fans throughout the country and the globe. In California, we produced Aftershock, the West Coast largest rock largest rock festival and and formerly produced Golden Sky.
Speaker 24
An independent study by Commonwealth Economics demonstrates these festivals are economic drivers for the state. In 2025, Aftershock generated $73,000,000 in total economic output and $8,000,000 in tax revenue. In 2024, Aftershock and Golden Sky combined to generate $98,000,000 in economic output and $10,700,000 in tax revenue. These figures highlight the direct spend associated with building festivals and the indirect impacts felt across hotels, restaurants, vendors, and jobs supported throughout the region. Producing major festivals is like building a city, complete with all the public safety, labor, infrastructure, and insurance needed to operate, and we risk more than $36,000,000 before we even open the doors.
And the costs for producing in California are increasing rapidly. In the last four years, we've seen 3.3% inflation, while the operating costs for festivals have increased by 10% per year, and the production costs have increased by 12% over the same time period. We cannot pass these costs onto the fans, and as a result, Golden Sky paused after 2024 despite generating 33,800,000 in economic impact for the state of California. This is exactly the type of outcome SBA six five is designed to, to prevent. Providing targeted support to independent promoters and events that deliver measurable economic, cultural and cultural and value, economic and cultural value to the state.
SB eight sixty five is an investment for California that is tied to real economic outcomes and represents an opportunity for, for support of local businesses.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Appreciate it. Lead opposition witnesses? Seeing none, can I have me too state you support or oppose?
Speaker 20
Morning. Brandon Knapp representing National Independent Venue Association, as well as the California Capital Venue Coalition in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 19
chairman members. Ross Buckland, I'm about the city of Sacramento in support.
Speaker 14
I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. We voted on this last year. And as a former mayor of Huntington Beach, we brought in Dark Waves concert and brought a lot of revenue through our Visit HP. And I hear nothing but great things about Mr. Tessa and what you're doing in Sacramento.
Speaker 25
And these are the kinds of things that help bring revenue, sales tax revenue, restaurants, hotels. And, this is a smart investment. You know, invest a dollar and you're gonna get $10 back. And so, I wanna commend the author, and hopefully, we get it through this year.
Speaker 16
Thank you. Once again, we visit the bill again. But I will tell you, I there's implications of this bill that that are far greater than just the concert. It is California. It is the weather.
It is bringing people together so people understand that California is the place for entertainment, whether it be Hollywood, whether it be in our local parks or wherever it might be. And it shows that we can open up and think about the economy, think about jobs and the number of entertainers. It just goes on and on. So when, people say that California isn't business friendly, I think this is a first step forward that we're ensuring that we're gonna continue to be business friendly. So I commend you for bringing it, and, I will be supporting it a 100%.
Speaker 13
Thank you, chair. I have a big concern about this bill. The bill says that it'll establish the California's music festival Preservation Grant Program within the Office of Small Business Association to provide the grants to eligible independent, large scale, multi day music festival promoters and also requires this office will allocate the sum of $20,000,000 in grants. Even though I hear this type of musical festivals will generate multimillion, I hear 40,000,000, 41,000,000 something, $70,000,000 of economic impact. I would agree if the musical festival is successful, a lot of people will come and obviously help our local economy.
Speaker 15
If that's the case, they are about to make a multimillion dollars of profits. Why state has to give $20,000,000 of set aside and during this deficit year? And this economy is a free market economy that anyone does well will succeed. If they don't well they don't do well, they will fail. The government is not here to promote the independent municipal operations with the state funding like this during the deficit period.
I won't be able to support today.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have been opposed to the film tax credit. I was the only no vote on the Senate floor on that. So I realize I'm in the minority, but largely because it is fleeting and we're just sort of subsidizing to the subsidy of the next city that's trying to take that business for them. This is different though because film productions don't come along with thousands of people to watch the filming.
Mhmm. And that really does generate local economic benefit. And even though it might be event by event and there's still gonna be competition among areas for that particular business, there is demonstrable economic benefit. The number of people translates to translates easily to economic impact on the community, and that is always greater than whatever the grant is. There are so many times when we hear $1 of investment here creates $5 in that benefit, and a lot of it is based on very shaky evidence.
But this is objective evidence. We have the film, the productions in the past. So I just wanted to explain that because it could be people knowing my past position on the film tax credit could be inconsistent. But I don't think it is and I'll support this.
Speaker 22
Sure. Bottom line here is we have good California businesses like the one you've heard from today, and it's easier for them to invest in musical festivals in Kentucky than it is in Huntington Beach or Sacramento or LA or the Bay Area. We need to change that. I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 14
Motion does do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Choi?
No. Choi, no. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta aye.
Adeguin? Cabriero? Aye. Cabriero aye. Grayson?
Speaker 1
Alright. I appreciate that. We're gonna move on to file item number two by senator Ochoa Bogue. Senator Nilo, would you like to present?
Speaker 1
Senator Nilo, would you be able to let senator Allen go ahead of you? I apologize. Thank
Speaker 17
you, madam chair. I I appreciate that. Thank you, senator, to join the committee. You're you're stuck Thank you, here my friend. Alright.
Thank you. Thank you, members. Appreciate it. Alright. Well, thank you for this opportunity to present SB twelve ninety seven in timely fashion.
This bill incentivizes regional entities or their designees under the regional forest and fire capacity program to bring together more public entities and nonprofits and other private entities such as insurers and utilities and folks from the firefighting community to form regional wildfire public private partnerships. The idea would be that these partnerships will work together to develop wildfire mitigation projects that reduce risk and result in avoided losses from all sorts of different perspectives, public entities, non profits, insurers, utilities, and other impacted private entities. As part of the planning, participants will discuss and agree upon different levels of funding. Each is willing to commit to the projects. The planned projects will be eligible to receive seed money from state revenue bonds coordinated with the iBank.
The partnerships will enter into repayment plans so the bond funds are then repaid over time. This is all, of course, coming from our massive wildfire risk and the need for greater coordination. As you know, our wildfires are unfortunately becoming more frequent, more destructive in our state. The recent large fires in my district caused something like $30,000,000,000 in losses, which is kind of a mind blowing amount of money. And then, of course, we're starting to see all this additional investment that we're all having to put up here in state government.
The state spent, just during the 'twenty five, 'twenty six fiscal year, dollars 4,000,000,000 on wildfire related activities, the vast majority of which is going toward firefighting and suppression, with only 10% going toward prevention. And yet it's estimated that the annual need for mitigation alone is between 4,000,000,000 to $7,000,000,000 statewide, according to the recent SB two four report that came out from the earthquake authority. In fact, the report the SB two fifty four report aptly identified that there is a need for a more coordinated statewide program for community focused mitigation. The report recommends creating a state coordinated financing model that blends public revenue and private investment to stretch limited public funds. So this bill is seeking to bring together all sorts of stakeholders on this topic.
And with me here to testify in support, we have Sam Huden, who is here on behalf of NetZero California.
Speaker 21
Thank you. Chair and committee members, my name is Sam Huden, and I'm cofounder and managing director of NetZero California. We're proud to support SB twelve ninety seven, which would establish a new mechanism to finance wildfire mitigation, including by mobilizing a blend of public and private capital. So as we know, California is facing an escalating wildfire crisis, and the only way to solve it is through wildfire mitigation, actions like home hardening, defensible space, vegetation management. A key obstacle, as the senator mentioned, is that there's not even close to enough public money available to support these actions at the required scale.
The state currently puts up about $500,000,000 each year, which is 10% of the annual need. If we don't solve the state's wildfire mitigation financing problem, we don't solve the state's wildfire problem. The key is mobilizing private capital to the cause. Utilities and insurers spend tens of billions of dollars every year on wildfire related costs, but this is ignition reduction, liability and claims, not community wildfire mitigation. SB twelve ninety seven creates a mechanism and incentive for these entities to allocate capital towards community wildfire mitigation.
Speaker 27
These investments will be facilitated by new public private partnerships that would have access to a new revolving fund and state backed revenue bonds issued by iBank. And lastly, I want to mention the SB two fifty four report which came out, clearly highlighted the need for state coordinated strategies to finance wildfire mitigation. So we see this bill as serving to implement that priority recommendation from the report. So I thank the senator and this, committee, and we respectfully request your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Seeing no other lead support witnesses, can we move on to lead opposition? Seeing none, we're gonna move on to Me Toos. Seeing none, members, would you guys like to comment? Seeing none, senator, would you like to close?
What? A mistake. Okay. Senator Nilo.
Speaker 13
Just a quick question. It wasn't clear to me from the material I've got where the funds are coming from to pay the revenue bonds.
Speaker 8
Yeah. We are so some well, the revenue bond would be state funded. What we've we've what we found you know, we were building it off of some existing programs that involve kind of a combination of public and private funding. The Blue Forest program that has been existing, and also there's been a number of local agencies that have done various bonds that they can do on their own that could then be built into this program. So, for example, Huber Water Agency has they committed, I think, 1,500,000 to leverage a forest resiliency bond of $4,600,000 to restore an area in their watershed.
Speaker 17
And then they had insurance organizations come in as investors. So the idea is that we this will largely be driven by local funding. We could look into state support, but that's not committed or delineated yet. But the idea is that it'll be a public private partnership at the local level with involving public and private funds through local bonds and local funding, but also private money. So in the case of this case up in Yuba, the CSAA insurance group came in as an investor because they saw this watershed work was making a difference in terms of risk reduction in the area so that it
Speaker 13
would make that area a better bet for reinsurance. I ask the question because revenue bonds, by definition, are not paid by the general fund. But we've had some perversion in the exercise of revenue bonds over the last couple of decades where they've been called revenue bonds but the source of the funding is someone else who gets their money from the general fund. That's why I was asking the question. Yeah.
And but it sounds to me like it's that is kind of a work in process.
Speaker 17
It is, but it but it's based on the idea that that they will all be repaid by commitments from the participants.
Speaker 17
With real funds. Yeah. That they have. So if the state gets involved, it would be kind of floating, loans effectively. But, you know, I'm yeah.
This is a of work in progress in terms of how we're we're crafting it, but we don't want this to be a a cost to the state. Thank you. Yeah.
Speaker 15
think you you answered the question. I one one of the things I'm concerned about is that people haven't taken seriously the need to home hardening, to harden their home. And it's because it costs and because it means eliminating or removing vegetation close to the house that increases the value of the house. So I just wanna make sure that there's skin in the game locally, both from either the homeowners and local government so that it's not all falling on the state.
Speaker 17
Yeah. No. No. This is not about falling on the state. This actually is about locally driven investment.
So local agencies and that float some of the money along with private entities.
Speaker 17
Yeah, appreciate the discussion. By the way, recommend given your previous comment just now, Senator, the Board of Forestry just came out with their new and improved vegetation management guidelines, which I think I really commend everyone to read. They're finally incorporating a lot of the subtlety. But this is we know in the end of the day, as much as we want to encourage individuals to harden and I agree that that is a very important thing, I'm actually running another bill for a state backed loan interest loan program for hardening we know that we also need to really focus on community resiliency. That as individuals harden their homes, it's still not a great bet for insurers because if all their neighbors are not hardening, then they're still considered a high risk.
So one of the things we need to do is be bringing together public entities, forest, wild lands managers, and then also the insurance industry to invest together on risk reduction, and that's what this is all about. So with that respect, we ask for another vote.
Speaker 14
Choi aye. Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta aye. Adegine?
Caballero? Aye. Caballero aye. Grayson? Aye.
Grayson aye. Menjivar? Nilo? Aye. Nilo, aye.
Smallwood, Cuevas? Strickland?
Speaker 1
Thank you, guys. We're gonna move on to our final bill, file item number two by senator Ochoa Bogue being presented by senator Nilo, SB nine ninety three.
Speaker 26
Thank you, madam chair. I am presenting SB nine ninety three on behalf of Senator Ochoa Bogg. This bill will restore previous protections for mental health professionals working in certain correctional and psychiatric settings by allowing these employers to limit the routine disclosure of a mental health provider's identifying information to patients. These professionals play a crucial role in supporting one of our most vulnerable populations and we need to ensure that they feel safe while on the job. Rather than waiting for safety concerns to arise, SB nine ninety three limits the routine disclosure of their information, but also preserves accountability by requiring these facilities to provide an accessible complaint process for patients in correctional and psychiatric settings.
Speaker 13
I hope you'll join me in supporting mental health professionals who deliver crucial care that leads to positive outcomes for individuals in correctional settings. And, with me, as witnesses are is, Carl, Miller, AFSCME Local two thousand six hundred twenty President and Social Worker at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton and Nadeesh Moffer, a Social Worker.
Speaker 27
Good morning, madam chair and members of the committee. My name is Carl Miller, I serve as president of AFSCME Local two thousand six hundred twenty. We represent over 5,000 health and social service workers in state service. I am also a frontline licensed clinical social worker at California Health Care Facility here in Stockton. We are here in strong support of SB nine ninety three.
This bill restores critical safety and privacy protections for mental health professionals working within CDCR and the Department of State Hospitals. While SB1024 was well intentioned and appropriate for many therapeutic environments, it created unintended consequences in correctional settings by removing longstanding safeguards that many of us rely on to do our job safely. In our line of work, we engage daily with individuals who may be in crisis, experiencing severe mental illness, or struggling with impulse control. The therapeutic relationship is important, but so are professional boundaries. Without clear safeguards, those boundaries can be compromised in ways that put clinicians at real risk.
SB nine nine three helps restore those boundaries. It protects mental health professionals from threats, harassment, and stalking, not just inside our facilities, but in our communities as well. When personal information is too easily accessible, it doesn't just affect us. It affects our families. It changes how we live, where we go, how we feel outside of work.
That has real consequences. We're already facing a significant staffing shortage across correctional health care. Recruitment is difficult. Retention is even harder if if clinicians do not feel safe. They will leave, and potential candidates will choose not to enter this field at all.
Speaker 4
SB nine nine three is not just about safety, it's about workforce stability. At the same time, this bill maintains accountability. It preserves access to the complaint process and ensures oversight remains intact without exposing clinicians to unnecessary personal risk, that balance is both reasonable and necessary. Ultimately, a strong, protected mental health workforce is essential to the functioning of California's congressional facility. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 2
Good morning. My name is Nadesh Moffo. I'm a social worker at California Health Care Facility in Stockton. I'm here to support my colleagues. I mean, I was a victim of an inmate that got a hold of my name, first and last name, and my address, and they stalked me.
Speaker 28
So please vote yes, and it wasn't an the outcome wasn't so good. So I'm a victim of that. So I I I'm in support
Speaker 1
of this bill. Thank you. Seeing any opposition witnesses come to the mic? Seeing none, me too's in support and opposition. Seeing none, members of the committee oh, would you like to me too?
Come on. You've been here. You've seen how we're trying to move this. Thank you, Madam Chair, members. Janet Smalley with AFSCME California.
We're proud sponsors of the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other me too's, we're going to move on to members of the committee, seeing Senator Archuleta.
Speaker 20
Thank you. Well, not just Phil, but thank you for accepting up for your colleague. But I'd big shout out to ask me, council fifty seven and obviously twenty six twenty, for standing with its members, for understanding that by sharing to all of us and to everyone the work that you do, the LCSWs, the nurses, everyone who take care of our mentally ill, that it is not an easy profession. It is a dangerous profession at times where employees have been struck down, have been harassed, been pushed, and even in some cases beaten. And you're not security officers, You are therapists.
Speaker 16
You're licensed clinical social workers trying to take care of those mentally ill. But, to all of you, I I thank you for what you do and we'll continue to support you. And I I'm so, honored to, support this bill 100%, and I will move it at the appropriate time.
Speaker 13
No other questions, comments. Thank you very much for those clarifying additional clarifying comments, and I most respectfully request an honor.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Archuleta. Can we get a roll call, please?
Speaker 14
Motion is due passed. The Senate Appropriations Committee. Wahhab? Aye. Wahhab?
Aye. Choi?
Speaker 14
Choi? Archuleta? Aye. Archuleta? Aye.
Adegine? Caballero? Aye. Caballero? Grayson I.
Meenjivar? Nilo?
Speaker 14
Nilo I. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas I. Strickland Strickland I.
Hamburg I. Alright.
Speaker 1
That bill is what what? Nine. Nine to zero. That bill is out. We're gonna move on to consent.
Yeah. All of you guys voted for the most part. Okay. Consent. Okay.
Speaker 14
File item number 10. Current vote six to zero. Chair and vice chair voting aye. Adegine Caballero? Aye.
Caballero aye. Menjivar? Smallwood Cuevas? Smallwood Cuevas aye. Hamburg?
Aye. Hamburg aye.
Speaker 1
Consent is Nine to zero. Nine to zero. That bill is out. We're gonna go to file item number one, s p eight six five.
Speaker 14
Motion is due passed to senate appropriations committee. Current part six to one with chair voting aye, vice chair voting no. Adegine? Menjivar? Okay.
Menjivar, aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Unberg?
Aye.
Speaker 1
Unberg, aye. Alright. That 0. 91. Sorry.
9 to one. That bill is out. We're gonna move on to file item number two, s B993 by senator Ocho Bogg.
Speaker 1
No. That was out. Right? Okay. Never mind.
File item number three. Sorry. SB1297 by senator Allen.
Speaker 14
Motion is due passed to senate appropriations committee. Current vote seven to zero with chair and vice chair voting aye. Adegaine? Meenjivar? Aye.
Meenjivar, aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Hamburg?
Aye. Hamburg, aye.
Speaker 19
Motion is to pass as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote six to zero with chair and vice chair voting aye. Adegine Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye.
Speaker 14
Mounjivar? Aye. Mounjivar, aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Smallwood Cuevas, aye.
Hamburg? Aye. Hamburg, aye. 10.
Speaker 1
10 to zero. That bill is out. File item number six, SB thirteen oh three.
Speaker 14
Motion is due passed as amended to Senate Preparations Committee. Current vote six to zero with chair and vice chair voting aye. Adegine Carriero? Aye. Carriero, aye.
Munjibar? Aye. Munjibar, aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye.
Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Unberg? Aye. Unberg, aye. It's 10 to zero.
Speaker 1
10 to zero. The bill's out. File item number seven, SB thirteen oh four.
Speaker 14
Motion is due passed to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote six to zero with chair and vice chair voting aye. Adegine Cabrera? Aye. Cabrera, aye.
Gmenjevar? Aye. Gmenjevar, aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye.
Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Hamburg?
Speaker 1
That bill is out. 10 to zero. 10 to zero. File item number eight, s b thirteen sixty three.
Speaker 14
That motion is due passed as amended to senate appropriations committee. Current votes is six to zero with chair and vice chair voting aye. Adegine Caballero? Aye. Caballero aye.
Meenjibar? Aye. Meenjibar aye. Smotto Cuevas? Aye.
Smotto Cuevas aye. Umberg aye.
Speaker 1
That bill is 10 to zero. That bill is out. File item number nine, s b thirteen sixty eight.
Speaker 14
Motion is due passed to Senate Appropriations Committee. Current vote six to zero, with chair and vice chair voting aye. Adeguin? Carbiro? Aye.
Carbiro aye. Mengevar aye. Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas aye.
Unberg? Aye. Unberg aye. That
Speaker 1
bill is 10 to zero. That bill is out. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.